Allowed

Mr.N.Veershetty v. The District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy

Telangana HC3 Jul 2014WP/7430/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged the rejection of his mutation and title deed application by the Tahasildar following an objection by a brother. The court held that since title was already adjudicated by a Lok Adalat based on a compromise decree, the revenue authority could not deny mutation and was directed to re-examine the matter after notifying all parties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement rejecting mutation is set aside. The second respondent is directed to re-examine the matter after issuing notice to all parties including the objector.

Mr.N.Veershetty Vs The District Collector, Medak District… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

W.P. No. 7430 of 2011

¶3

Date of Judgment: 3.7.2014

Between:

N. Veershetty

…Petitioner

And

The District Collector, Medak district and another

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶11

W.P. NO. 7430 OF 2011

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The petitioner approached the second respondentTahasildar seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records as well as in pahani patrikas and issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The said application was made by the petitioner on the basis of a decree dated 18.10.2008 in O.S.No. 29 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad passed by a Lok Adalat by recording compromise between the parties and declaring that the petitioner herein is the owner of Ac.3-37 guntas in Sy.No. 49/AA situated at Chinna Hyderabad village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District. The said application of the petitioner for mutation and the grant of pattadar passbooks and

¶15

title deeds was rejected under the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 29.10.2010 and the said endorsement is questioned in this writ petition.

¶16

It is evident from the said endorsement that the petitioner’s claim based on the decree in O.S.No. 29 of 2007 was taken up, and after a notification was issued calling for objections, if any, brother of the petitioner by name Hanumanthappa s/o Bichappa raised objections claiming a share in the land. In view of that, the second respondent issued the impugned endorsement directing the petitioner to approach civil Court and get the issue resolved. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s claim was already adjudicated in a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction in O.S.No. 29 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad and it was referred to Lok Adalat where the parties consented and executed a memo of compromise dated 18.10.2008 and the Lok Adalat passed an award in pursuance of the said compromise. The petitioner was thus declared in the said decree as owner of Ac.3-37 guntas in Sy.No. 49/AA and the said objector who is brother of the petitioner was arrayed as defendant No. 10 in the said suit. Hence the judgment and decree/award passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be once again questioned by any of the parties before the Lok Adalat by objecting to the mutation based on the said award.

¶17

Hence the impugned endorsement of the second respondent is set aside as the petitioner cannot be repeatedly asked to once again approach the civil court in spite of the decree passed by the Lok Adalat. The second respondent shall re-examine the matter after issuing notice to all the parties and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner and the

¶18

objector, if any and dispose of the petitioner’s application in accordance with law.

¶19

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶20

_________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶21

Dt. 3.7.2014 KR

Mr.N.Veershetty v. The District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.N.Veershetty v. The District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Captain Ikram a.Kaleem Vs State of Telangana, Represented through its Secretary

Bandi Shanker s/o Rajaiah Vs The Government of Telangana State

Smt. a. Chandrakala, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

C.Md. Yakub, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. M. Anjana Devi, Vs The District Collector

Yelampally Padma Vs The District Revenue Officer